Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Indeed, they even share the same F.5 designation: Caproni Vizzola F.5 and Gloster F.5/34. As for the looks, Gloster, Caproni and Mitsubishi all seemed to find similar inspiration.
First flight Dec. 1936
First flight Feb. 1939
First flight April 1939
The Re.2001 was derived from the Re.2000, so it's not hugely surprising that the Italian Navy considered it for Aquila given the use of the Re.2000 as a catapult fighter. Aircraft Profile #244: Capproni Regianne 2001 Falco II, Re 2002 Ariete & Re 2005 Sagittaire by John F Brindley also indicates that the Re.2002 also underwent catapult testing with a view towards having the type equip Aquila and Sparviero. The main reason I'm not so sure about the Re.2005 as a carrier fighter is because it was largely a new design with a different landing gear design then previous Regianne fighters, and one source indicates that its rear fuselage was structurally weak.
From 'Gloster Aircraft since 1917' by Derek N James, page 417.
Buffalo didn't fold.
F4F-3/Martlet (early ones) didn't fold.
F4F-4/Maartlet (later ones) did fold.
Timing.
Timing.
Timing.
Thank you, SR. I don't know if I feel dumb or not so dumb right now, but thanks.
No need to feel too bad, getting all-metal monoplanes to fold their wings wasn't easy and in the early years of modern carrier aircraft, a few manufacturers went the easy way and avoided doing so altogether. The first generation of all-metal aircraft had rather simple folding techniques, like the B5N or Devastator by folding the outer panels up, but Grumman bought a new sophistication to the art by pivoting the wing to sit vertically along the fuselage side. Fairey later did the same with the Firefly, but the Fulmar's wing swung backwards in its natural plain. Folding wings added weight and complexity and required a bit of extra thought from the engineering department.
Fulmar, note how a portion of the trailing edge pivots upwards to enable the panel to fold rearwards...
View attachment 6343310307 FAA Museum Fulmar
The Firefly, like Grumman designs was a bit more complex.
View attachment 634332DSC_0152
They used the same bore and stroke and the same number of cylinders.I don't know that much about British engines, but Perseus looks like about the same power as the Mercury. At least, on the Skua for example.
I know there are fans of the Fulmar, but I'm not one of 'em.
There was logic, but in hindsight was kinda flawed.
it strikes me that one seat is better than two in any fighter,
They used the same bore and stroke and the same number of cylinders.
One must drink deeply of the sleeve valve cool-aid to believe the Perseus was going to make significantly more power than the Mercury.
The designers of the time might have been lured down the Taurus pathway but not only was it very, very dark, it lead to a sheer cliff.
The Taurus was 2% larger in displacement than the Mercury and Perseus (and several hundred pounds heavier) and depended on high rpm and the above mentioned cool aid to make power.
It had a lot of over heating problems and the vast majority of the service engines had FTH of 3000ft or 3500ft.
The Taurus XVI was rated at 1130hp at 3500ft at 3100rpm at 4.75lbs boost using 100/130 fuel.
One might estimate a bit over 800hp at 14,000ft from that and the only advantage the Taurus has is smaller diameter.
It never got a two speed supercharger.
The Japanese Zuisei engine was 1702 cu in (9.8% larger than the Taurus) the Japanese only used it to power the first two A6M prototypes before changing engines to the Sakae.
It was used in other aircraft.
The engine used in the Brewster Buffalo was 19.7% bigger in displacement than Mercury/Perseus.
The British simply have no path forward for a radial engine fighter in the late 30s no matter how well some of the prototypes performed.
There is also the timing issue.